Attack on teldrassil

[Jmanwarrior-darkspear (Jmanwarrior)]

She was doing something shady to someone who is apart of a group helping us fight the Legion during their current invasion. Yknow Odyns posse?

[Jazia-sargeras (Jazia)]

More like Genn broke the relative peace between the Alliance and Horde that the High King and the Warchief had secured at the Broken Shore, before they fell.

After the Legion’s defeat, when the new Warchief and High King attempted to broker diplomacy following Genn’s assassination attempt, the Alliance broke the terms of the Gathering.

Genn broke the peace and Anduin ruined any diplomacy that was attempted. What else should a Warchief do? You escape an assassination attempt, agree to a diplomatic event, and the Alliance breaks the ground rules of that event as well.

Bull.

Calia’s mere presence didn’t break any of the established rules.

Sylvanas herself recognized that Calia’s sad pathetic attempt attempt at a coup wasn’t sanctioned by Anduin.

[Cursewords-tichondrius (Cursewords)]

Calia’s mere presence didn’t break any of the established rules.

Sylvanas herself recognized that Calia’s sad pathetic attempt attempt at a coup wasn’t sanctioned by Anduin.

There were lists of names that were vetted to attend on both sides. Calia Menethil was not on the list of living humans under Sylvanas’s protection.

Anduin told Sylvanas something like “Faol and an apprentice of his.” Anduin never mentioned who it would be. He did not share the identity of that person, and that person tried to assist in defection. She could be seen as inciting an insurrection. Anduin and Genn both agreed that Sylvanas kept her word.

Only one side brought an individual not fully vetted by both sides

[Serevèn-wyrmrest-accord (Serevèn)]

This is sort of the crucial underlying issue with the Forsaken. Their continued existence requires moral relativism and the dominance of their relative perspective over others. Unlike the other sapient races, Forsaken reproduce through parasitism of other races. They are at odds with life.

For life to go on on Azeroth, the living races either need to accept natural rights and push the Forsaken to either accept their inevitable decline and disappearance from the world, or eradicate them should they refuse to accept. Forsaken are antithetical to the continued survival of life.

This narrative and it requiring the audience view all perspectives on display as equally valid is more or less akin to an Alien movie asking us to understand that the xenomorph has the same rights to existence as the other characters. Its not wrong in relative terms, but its very clear from an outside perspective which of the two equally valid points of view is more in line with the real world human perspective.

Its fun to roleplay and get in the head of a person or group who has been changed into what the Forsaken are, to understand how they would feel facing what they might see as “extinction” and the limited solutions they have available. I do get that. But even looking at them relatively, there are limits. If relative perspectives really is your jam, and you’re not actually a Forsaken in real life, then you really ought to be viewing all viewpoints as valid. Which means understanding that the Forsaken are the one race threatening all other perspectives. They inherently invalidate their claims of “I have a right to live!” by robbing others of that right.

[Borgia-emerald-dream]

That seems honorable and unlikely to unite the enemy against us!

Wasn’t the plan to kill the night elf leaders too

[Grandblade-wyrmrest-accord (Grandblade)]

I leave the forums for two seconds, and suddenly “Eyir was already a slave, so she might as well be Sylvanas’ slave” is an actual argument.

[Ningjinq-bleeding-hollow (Ningjinq)]

I expect any argument involving the legitimacy of burning Teldrassil to be rendered moot when they make it part of some part of Sylvanas’ to turn the entire world into undeath.

[Aedren-anvilmar]

I expect any argument involving the legitimacy of burning Teldrassil to be rendered moot when they make it part of some part of Sylvanas’ to turn the entire world into undeath.

I find the fact that there is any argument in the first place about the legitimacy of burning Teldrassil sort of crazy, to be honest.

[Jazia-sargeras (Jazia)]

Calia’s mere presence didn’t break any of the established rules.

Sylvanas herself recognized that Calia’s sad pathetic attempt attempt at a coup wasn’t sanctioned by Anduin.

There were lists of names that were vetted to attend on both sides. Calia Menethil was not on the list of living humans under Sylvanas’s protection.

This from the guy constantly accusing other people of making things up to suit their argument.

This is what the Archbishop had to say to Sylvanas.

“You can trust King Anduin, Your Majesty. He means no ill. I know from my conversations with the Prime Governor and others in the Undercity that all those here today—and more than a few Forsaken who could not be present—are in favor of this gathering. It remains to be seen if the human half of this plan is also amenable. If they are, I and another priest from the Conclave would be honored to supervise the event.”

And heeeeeere is Sylvanas in the same scene:

“But I must above all ensure the safety of my beloved Forsaken,” she said. “So here is what I will say to the king when I reply. Each member of the Desolate Council will submit five names, in order of preference, of people in Stormwind they would like to meet. If these individuals are still alive, they will be contacted and asked if they wish to participate. The king and a priest selected by the good archbishop will permit only those whom they deem sincere to attend."

[…]

“At sunrise, you will walk forward to a halfway point that will be marked by Horde and Alliance banners. Archbishop Faol and his assistant will meet you there. As will your Alliance counterparts.”

All this before Calia spoke to Anduin about attending!

Sylvanas agreed a priest from the conclave selected by the Archbishop could help, at no point before the gathering did she inquire about the priest’s identity, demand that priest be vetted or specify whether that priest should be living or undead, alliance or horde, commoner or displaced royalty.

Any suggestion otherwise is merely you doing what you constantly accuse others of doing–making up hypothetical fanfiction non events to suit your argument.

[Cursewords-tichondrius (Cursewords)]

Anduin told Sylvanas something like “Faol and an apprentice of his.” Anduin never mentioned who it would be.

Any suggestion otherwise is merely you doing what you constantly accuse others of doing–making up hypothetical fanfiction non events to suit your argument.

I admit I wasn’t sure who said it - thats why I said “Anduin said something like”. I was going to add “if I remember correctly” but I figured “something like” conveyed my uncertainty. I will be sure to express uncertainty more clearly. I usually say if I dont know for certain - like I said in that quote.

I simply remembered incorrectly who mentioned the Priests assistant - but an assistant was mentioned to Sylvanas without being named. That is not made up.

Though the words came from Faol, they come at the behest of Anduin, as you note Foal speaking on behalf of the High King and his plan:

“You can trust King Anduin, Your Majesty. He means no ill.

I understand you are strident towards me, so I dont take offense, but there is a difference between totally making up an event - and forgetting who mentioned the priests assistant.

I did not make up the event of Sylvanas demanding the names of people being exchanged, and the priests assistant not being named - those events happened in your quote.

Also what actually happened, as you mention -Anduin still agreed to bring Calia without vetting her or giving her name to Sylvanas. Sylvanas was never made aware who the assistant was. Every other member there was vetted by both sides, except Anduin’s unannounced invited guest. That is a fact.

You can trust King Anduin, Your Majesty. He means no ill.

So Faol said it instead of Anduin - but someone did say it to Sylvanas. And he said it at Anduin’s behest. Acting like I made the whole thing up is a bit disingenuous. Anduin still agreed to bring Calia without notifying Sylvanas, and Calia tried to help defectors and incite rebellion.

Sylvanas made the mistake of trusting Faol’s judgement, and Faol’s words were at the behest of Anduin.

Further proving that you can’t trust Anduin. Not because of what he might do as a sinister character, but because of what he allows others to do as High King. Genn and Calia being the primary examples.

[Halkzert-zangarmarsh]

Holy hell, imagine unironically thinking that enslaving a sentient being for immortality would be okay because her deranged, hypocritical boss might possibly be okay with it.

[Cursewords-tichondrius (Cursewords)]

Holy hell, imagine unironically thinking that enslaving a sentient being for immortality would be okay because her deranged, hypocritical boss might possibly be okay with it.

Again, I am not certain that term applies. As much as I hear people lament about “mind control”, the roots of the Valkyr under Odyn are dismissed.

Helya would have the most intimate knowledge of what Odyn considers a useful Valkyr. She championed Vrykul independence before Odyn waved his hand and usurped the afterlives of the Vrykul.

We do not know the words spoken between Helya and Sylvanas. For all I can guess, Teldrassil was more sentient than Eyir by simply being a tree.

[Treng-wyrmrest-accord (Treng)]

Holy crap. I’m out of words. The last few replies just have me laughing. My God these forums are beyond farcical at times.

People are really out here justifying Sylvanas’ enslaving people with what ifs and crap. Holy God.

Some people just cannot comprehend how wrong they are. Even when they’re typing what equates to ‘slavery is okay when Sylvanas does it’ it never occurs to them how messed up that is.

[Arlifrex-moon-guard (Arlifrex)]

Morally grey

[Alynsa-wyrmrest-accord]

Again, I am not certain that term applies. As much as I hear people lament about “mind control”, the roots of the Valkyr under Odyn are dismissed.

We know Val’kyr are sentient because they make sentient decisions, have full conversations and care about their futures. So that argument holds no water. That only leaves the “they were already slaves, so it’s okay” argument which…

Yeah.

[Cursewords-tichondrius (Cursewords)]

We know Val’kyr are sentient because they make sentient decisions, have full conversations and care about their futures.

That depends on which Valkyr you speak of.

Eyir is fully enthralled to Odyn, as was Helya, before Loken was able to bring her disagreements with Odyn to the surface.

The Valkyr under the Lich King who defected to Sylvanas were without a master and had their own will and made their own choices - yet hey had to “submit” themselves to a vessel in order to free themselves. Sylvanas was that vessel.

The Valkyr requiring their “submission” seems to be a theme. Which could be why Sylvanas commands Eyir to “submit.”

If you see Odyn’s control over Eyir as a possession - a Priest often commands the evil spirits to submit and be gone from controlling the mortal they inhabit. Priests dont ask nicely when dealing with possessed mortals.

Why ask nicely when dealing with an enthralled Valkyr.

[Carmageddon-hyjal (Carmageddon)]

I believe the attack on teldrassil is a direct respones to the goings on in stormhiem. I think sylvannas kept her cool because there was a bigger and more [Immediate problem (legion), but never forgot ! Once the legion was put down it was time to deal with the alliance and put them in their place.

Well, that’s exactly what she tells Saurfang in “A Good War.” And he finds the argument convincing.

[Carmageddon-hyjal (Carmageddon)]

Some people just cannot comprehend how wrong they are. Even when they’re typing what equates to ‘slavery is okay when Sylvanas does it’ it never occurs to them how messed up that is.

For someone who actually linked the “Black and White” fallacy to a post a few days ago, you sure have no problem using it.

Slavery is wrong. Letting your entire race die when you can prevent it is more wrong.

This is the same math the Blood Elves did when they enslaved a Naaru. And it was the right call.

[Treng-wyrmrest-accord (Treng)]

Slavery is wrong. Letting your entire race die when you can prevent it is more wrong.

You can justify it all you like, my dude, but the Forsaken are not a race. Nor are Valkyr the only way to create them. Sylvanas ironically performs a black and white fallacy in stating that Valkyr are the only way to propogate the forsaken.

This is the same math the Blood Elves did when they enslaved a Naaru. And it was the right call.

The blood elves were wrong, but M’uru intentionally gave himself to them because he (or A’dal) had a vision wherein M’uru’s sacrifice would redeem them.

[Alynsa-wyrmrest-accord]

Why ask nicely when dealing with an enthralled Valkyr.

This is just the “enslaving someone’s okay when they’re already someone else’s slave” argument redux. If you honestly believe that, then hey, you do you. I don’t think many will agree, but okay.